Wisconsin went it alone on granting access to lake water, without even asking the other signatories of The Great Lakes Compact. That group of states bordering the great lakes that is supposed to agree on usage of that precious resource. They simply said "Take our highly sought after resource along with all these subsidies!" and ignored the outrage of the other states.

The previous administration ignored the protests of the residents of that area who were forcibly displaced. They ignored the reports pointing out how unfeasible their incentive program was. They ignored everything except getting their names in the headlines and praise from the President.

For those residents who lost their homes there's not a lot of recourse. But take back the water rights and take back the subsidies. Let Foxconn submit a new, accurate proposal and see what programs exist that match their stated intent.

I remember reading (I know, citation needed) that the president of Foxconn was upset that there was this much public insight into their company practices. They didn't like it and didn't want it. They're used to doing whatever they want and without answering to anyone. This has contributed to their punitive changes of fewer jobs, less skilled jobs, etc. So that side of the deal isn't happy either.

I'm a former resident of that general area. The time has passed to bring in more manufacturing jobs and to let the companies have free rein over what they do. Had another company come in right when Chrysler decided to break their agreement and close down 2/3 of the plant there it might have been greeted with joy. But that was a long time ago and people now see a big blank field where once there used to be three shifts of highly paid workers making cars. It took over a decade to get over that economic crisis and memories are long there. No one is going to put any confidence in Foxconn when it comes to generating and retaining jobs. The people have learned that lesson well.

What everyone seems to forget is that the baker was perfectly willing to sell them a cake from the display case. They did not want to create a custom cake, which is considered an artistic expression. And the couple specifically chose the bakery knowing the owner had religious objections to same sex marriage, setting up the lawsuit.

I did RFTA and while it gives a pro/con list it doesn't give ANY suggestions on how to fix things. So if you want bullet points on what the author considers good and bad about current practices by all means read it. Otherwise you can quite easily skip it.

The first problem - the job posting. Very rarely are they on point for what they're hiring for. Most of them are laundry lists of skills and generic "Must be a self starter" terms. And they're not really reviewed very well. We've all seen "Need X years of experience in Product Y" where Product Y was released X-2 years ago. That shows they just updated the version without updating the amount of exposure they want. Sloppy and all too common. I'm not even going to get on my rant about the companies who try to make their job listings 'fun'.

The screening process itself is broken. Resumes are fed into a database that spits out keyword matches.Humans rarely get to see the resume before HR decides who gets to move forward. As a database person I game the system by having a clearly labeled metadata section with nothing BUT keywords.

Initial HR screening interviews. I know this is kind of HR's function but they're useless since they're reading from a list of questions with set answers. And those questions (and answers) may no longer apply but are the ones on file. Again a barrier to getting the right people to look at candidates.

If you're lucky enough to navigate to an actual interview then you're in iffy territory. You're at the mercy of people who have their own agendas and priorities. Plus if they're pulling in staff members they don't know how to interview. I've sat through some truly terrible interviews where the questions obviously were given to these people and when the deviated it was off into the hinterlands of things that were never mentioned as part of the job.

A coworker just interviews and while the job description was very much in line with his skills the entire process has been focusing on ONE aspect of it that is an outlier for the job they listed. It's quite obvious that's where the company's pain point is but if that's the kind of person they wanted to hire they shouldn't pull a bait and switch on applicants.

My solution? First - make sure the job posting (and job description) match what the job is. Second - Take HR out of the initial screening. It takes time but the hiring manager should look over all the submitted resumes. Third - Have HR schedule the interviews for selected candidates and tell them the salary range if that wasn't already on the job posting. That's more in line with their jobs. Fourth - Interview in the way you would want to be interviews. Ask about prior experience. Ask how they would think through problems. Ask questions that show if they're familiar with the language rather than giving problems for them to solve. Find out their thought process and how they approach a problem. Fifth - This one is iffy but let the team members at least have some time talking with the candidate. If you're adding to a team then you want both sides to be a match. Sixth - Have HR contact the selected candidate with the news and do all the pre-hiring work they do best.

If you can't tell I don't like HR inserting themselves into the process. Their job is to do paperwork and to prevent the company from being sued. They have no business hiring technical people. Have them in at the beginning to contact the candidates and at the end to .. contact the candidates and make sure the person can be hired. Otherwise a hiring manager needs to get their hands dirty and FIND the right candidate out of the applicants.

However too many companies are wedded to their current practices. The company where I work is snail slow at hiring so we lose candidates who take other jobs before we can ever get them in the door for interviews. We lose more between the interview and the offer for the same reason. There's other reasons now but those are management stepping on their dicks rather than the fault of anyone in the process.

So yes. The process is broken. It's the fault of companies with inflexible hiring practices and hiring managers not willing or able to stand up and have the process work better. What would I do to fix it? I've listed out the flow above but I don't see it happening.

One last reminder. When you're interviewing at a company you're interviewing them as much as they're interviewing you. Ask questions. Ask difficult questions since this would be where you're working if you get selected. You learn a lot about how your manager is going to be as a manager by the way they answer the questions and the way they respond to the questions. Do even more of that if you get stuck in front of the team for an interview. You'll find out very quickly if you want to be part of that place.

Amazon Prime already does this so I can see Disney rubbing their hands together with glee at the possibility.

Season 1 is on your streaming service. Yay!

Season 2 shows up. Yay!

Season 3 arrives! Yippee! But why has Season 1 changed so I need to pay $10.99 to watch it? And it's just for a limited period of time?

Continue the included/shuffle as more seasons are added.

Don't think it's not the drawing board as 'just a concept' because it's very lucrative if they can get it through. People pay for streaming and binge watch. Taking various seasons and making some available with the monthly cost and others for an additional fee is very good for the content owners and very bad for the consumers. But without any other legal place to watch the shows those same customers are locked in. Pay or don't watch.

That's not even a very good pun, It's rather .. limp.

Unless you can make some kind of actual contribution perhaps you should just move along there cowboy.

How's about you send a copy of your house key and a list of all your accounts and passwords to every law enforcement agency in the country?

No? That's not safe? Really?

Because that's what you're saying that a backdoor to encryption is - taking a little hit in on the chin just in case some law enforcement agent wants to get into your personal data.

The entire point of encryption is safety. If it makes law enforcement more difficult then so be it. If you look at the number of times data has needed to be accessed versus how many people there are with encrypted devices you're going to see that your argument is broken.

No one is obligated to help law enforcement. We can't hinder it but we are not required to give you the keys to all of our digital houses just in case you want to go snooping around.

Equifax charges around $16 per month to get your credit report. They're saying our personal history is actually only worth a flat fee of $3. Something here doesn't compute.

Let's add something onto the credit monitoring. Let them pay for it for the rest of the lives of the impacted unwilling 'customers'. And then they can also pay $400 per person (the equivalent of 24 months of subscribing to their 'service') to everyone impacted by the breach. That comes out to about 59 billion dollars. Sounds reasonable to me and a nice incentive to learn to keep their data secure.

Fines mean nothing unless they hurt the company in the pocketbook. Seriously hurt them. This might drive the company out of business but is it really a loss at this point?

I'm 5'3" with boobs and the problem is that my seat belt is not in the intended position. My anatomy ensures that. So what should be a solid strap going from one hip over my torso to the frame of the car is angled up over my collar bone and shoulder, cutting into my neck.

This doesn't stop me from wearing my seat belt and snugging it down so it's as tight as it should be but it probably does reduce the effectiveness of it based on how it will hold me into the seat.

Just making a smaller crash test dummy isn't enough. Female bodies are different than male. It's basic anatomy. Those squishy bits need to be taken into consideration when designing safety equipment.

I've seen enough homeless people with smart phones that I doubt this will qualify as a problem.

I use my Pi as a media server, neatly tucked away out of sight. It's connected to an external hard drive and the router. I found that a case fan just blows dust onto the Pi.

I've moved to passive cooling. Heat sinks and a cast aluminum case to dissipate the heat on its own. The media server software is the only thing running on it so the load is minimal. That's not a solution for everyone but if you're using these as single function machines then it's a decent alternative and one less thing to break.

I had to RTFS again but it seems like the money is for the ISPs that aren't the ones swimming in money. These are the ones that actually do need outside funding to fulfill the requirement to provide rural broadband. If you read the list of states most of them have significant rural areas and/or distance between small cities and the hubs.

Of course there's every possibility that as soon as these companies build out the infrastructure they'll be bought out by the big cable companies so they'll get a second hand benefit to the funding but that can't be controlled. It's probably already in their business plans.

So they're trying to mash up Facebook events and MeetUp? With just a dash of Craigslist events? I'm trying to find a problem that this is solving.

And they're also going to bully the cell phone service providers into packaging it with their phones, with no way to remove it, so that they can brag about their installed base.

Is anyone else still salty about not being able to remove G+ now that they've changed it to a business only platform?

Ditto. They pretty much rubber stamped the denial it seems as well. An app with over 5 million downloads should get more consideration than that.

I'd say flood them with complaints but we all know how much Google cares about what people want as opposed to what they want to put in place.

The truly sad thing is that the app already follows the protocol for authentication that Google is demanding and does require mail and calendar integration. So there's no legitimate reason for not letting it keep access.

I worked at a company very similar in mindset but much larger. We were required to attend annual meetings when the pledge drive happened and had to fill out our pledge cards - even if you weren't going to pledge - before you could leave the meeting. It was higher pressure than timeshare sales because it was the company president telling you to donate.

I think I caved and donated $5 just to get the checkmark next to my name each year. I hated the pressure but liked being employed.

I'm going to cling to my Note 4 as long as possible, maybe even buying a spare to keep on hand. Replaceable battery, microSD card, and a headphone jack.

Newer phones aren't getting better. They're just getting larger.